Something Awful leak.

[am181d]

2nd Point: Who are the people who are surprised by this direction? We know that the base game will be more of a throwback to 3rd edition with some old school flavor, and that the 4e influence will be felt here and there but primarily in modules. They've come out and said as much.

Remember that the mission statement of the new edition is to create a version of D&D that appeals to the entirety of the fractured base. Since 4e is the least like the other editions, that means that the new edition is likely to least resemble 4e. That's not to say that 4e is bad. It's just a practical reality.

Similarly, for those who are looking for the new edition to be something new entirely... That is not the game they're building. They tried that with 4e to mixed results and they're deliberately trying a different approach this time...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

2nd Point: Who are the people who are surprised by this direction? We know that the base game will be more of a throwback to 3rd edition with some old school flavor, and that the 4e influence will be felt here and there but primarily in modules. They've come out and said as much.

Remember that the mission statement of the new edition is to create a version of D&D that appeals to the entirety of the fractured base. Since 4e is the least like the other editions, that means that the new edition is likely to least resemble 4e. That's not to say that 4e is bad. It's just a practical reality.

Similarly, for those who are looking for the new edition to be something new entirely... That is not the game they're building. They tried that with 4e to mixed results and they're deliberately trying a different approach this time...

But it's not a throwback to 3rd edition. Read the summation in the 2nd to last post on page 10. Just because the biased authors of that SA thread kept accusing the new rules of being heavily 3E-based doesn't make it true. Look at the list of things brought up. The only truly 3E thing in there is the free multiclassing. There's several other elements that 3E contained, but older editions also contained, and many would argue...were only even in 3E due to them being sacred cows. What do I see looking at the rules? 4E monster design, a complete abandonment of the wonderful 3E skill system, 1E style fighters, 4E style casters...

It looks almost nothing like 3E. Look at pretty much every 3E fan posting in this thread. None of us seem to like it. If it were a throwback to 3E, why would we all not like what we're hearing?

To speak generally, it sounds like they plan to make the game mostly like 4E but cleverly hide those elements behind new names and added fluff so as to hope 4E haters don't notice (a pretty cynical way to treat your fan base), and toss in 1E style warriors that do nothing but stand around in full plate and roll attack rolls to appease grognards.

It sounds like they're basically taking the worst ideas from both parts of the spectrum and homogenizing it into one giant, ugly mess.

 

[am181d]

But it's not a throwback to 3rd edition. Read the summation in the 2nd to last post on page 10. Just because the biased authors of that SA thread kept accusing the new rules of being heavily 3E-based doesn't make it true. Look at the list of things brought up. The only truly 3E thing in there is the free multiclassing. There's several other elements that 3E contained, but older editions also contained, and many would argue...were only even in 3E due to them being sacred cows. What do I see looking at the rules? 4E monster design, a complete abandonment of the wonderful 3E skill system, 1E style fighters, 4E style casters...

It looks almost nothing like 3E. Look at pretty much every 3E fan posting in this thread. None of us seem to like it. If it were a throwback to 3E, why would we all not like what we're hearing?

To speak generally, it sounds like they plan to make the game mostly like 4E but cleverly hide those elements behind new names and added fluff so as to hope 4E haters don't notice (a pretty cynical way to treat your fan base), and toss in 1E style warriors that do nothing but stand around in full plate and roll attack rolls to appease grognards.

It sounds like they're basically taking the worst ideas from both parts of the spectrum and homogenizing it into one giant, ugly mess.

I like 3e just fine, and I had no problem with about 85% of what I read. It sounds like half the board is taking the leaker's commentary too seriously and the other half is mapping their own anxieties onto everything they're reading.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think it's fake. There's just too many glaringly bad flaws. The people working on 5e are all experienced game designers who have worked on various editions of DnD for years, and I just can't imagine them removing common sense game mechanics like free actions so that they have to say things like "this can be done so quickly that it still allows you time to take an action" or "at the same time as you move during your turn, you.." in each ability. I also think they'd know better than to make all undead immune to turn undead.

It seems like a well-informed troll who included just enough stuff that has been confirmed by WotC publicly and then sprinkled it with made up stuff. After all, the best way to hide a lie is to wrap it in truth.

 

[Libramarian]

I absolutely think one of the things they might do with this edition is remove the "action economy" jargon.

On the whole I find the leak very believable. I'm not thrilled by it. I don't see anything that actually, you know, makes me excited as opposed to just not disappointed.

The return of Henchmen maybe. That's cool. Even though I prefer "Retainer". Call them Retainers to give Basic D&D some love.

I don't like the Fighter Surge mechanic. Rename it something besides "Surge" at least, please.

I also dislike 3e-style multiclassing, but I already heard about that.

 

[Arytiss]

I think it's fake. There's just too many glaringly bad flaws. The people working on 5e are all experienced game designers who have worked on various editions of DnD for years, and I just can't imagine them removing common sense game mechanics like free actions so that they have to say things like "this can be done so quickly that it still allows you time to take an action" or "at the same time as you move during your turn, you.." in each ability. I also think they'd know better than to make all undead immune to turn undead.

I dunno, given that what it's supposed to be is a very early Alpha version, it's entirely possible that those sorts of mistakes might be present. Alpha is Alpha after all.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But it's not a throwback to 3rd edition. Read the summation in the 2nd to last post on page 10. Just because the biased authors of that SA thread kept accusing the new rules of being heavily 3E-based doesn't make it true. Look at the list of things brought up. The only truly 3E thing in there is the free multiclassing. There's several other elements that 3E contained, but older editions also contained, and many would argue...were only even in 3E due to them being sacred cows. What do I see looking at the rules? 4E monster design, a complete abandonment of the wonderful 3E skill system, 1E style fighters, 4E style casters...

It looks almost nothing like 3E. Look at pretty much every 3E fan posting in this thread. None of us seem to like it. If it were a throwback to 3E, why would we all not like what we're hearing?

To speak generally, it sounds like they plan to make the game mostly like 4E but cleverly hide those elements behind new names and added fluff so as to hope 4E haters don't notice (a pretty cynical way to treat your fan base), and toss in 1E style warriors that do nothing but stand around in full plate and roll attack rolls to appease grognards.

It sounds like they're basically taking the worst ideas from both parts of the spectrum and homogenizing it into one giant, ugly mess.

That's an interesting take. The 4E people are seeing things they hated in 3E, while the 3E people are seeing little of what they liked about it.

 

[AeroDm]

The idea that if a monster doesn't have a stat it is immune to attacks by that stat is really quite elegant and I'm jealous I didn't think of it. It is by far the best design I saw in this leak. Some of it I like, very little of it do I dislike, but in sum it doesn't inspire me as much as I might hope. I'll still keep an open mind.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't like the Fighter Surge mechanic. Rename it something besides "Surge" at least, please. .

Maybe they used terms that evoked certain editions intentionally? In historic architectural preservation, for example, it's common practice now to make renovations/repairs that look just slightly different than the original so that people can tell the preservation history.

Maybe in the playtest documents they're doing something like that so playtesters have a reference point. "Ah, ok 'surges', that's like healing surges in 4e, I get it."

Just a hunch.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't like the Fighter Surge mechanic. Rename it something besides "Surge" at least, please.

How about "action point"?